Talk:Moe anthropomorphism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

Does this article have any references? I can't tell if it inherits anything from the other languages, since I can't read them. Melchoir 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well....the reference section did say it inherited from the other language...or are you doubting that statement? _dk 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
But zh.wikipedia.org and ja.wikipedia.org are not reliable sources. So did they use reliable sources, or are we trusting them on this topic because they're Asian? Melchoir 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be standard practice to note when you translated from another Wikipedia (GFLD purposes require proper accreditation, if I remember correctly). They don't really count as references, however, so I guess it doesn't have any yet. Ziggurat 03:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
All right then. Melchoir 04:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace?

I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan should be linked to from this page, i.e. cross-namespace. Ziggurat 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the simple solution is to create Wikipe-tan. D'ya suppose it's notable enough to survive AfD? Melchoir 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing not - it actually got nommed for AfD while still in Wikipedia-space! Ziggurat 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It was originally in article namespace, but an admin moved it for the exact reasons _dk 04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so it was. Well, an external link will do. Melchoir 04:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirects from main namespaces to other namespaces are strongly discouraged. For details, see both Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. -- ADNghiem501 07:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I (my changes to link her to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan got reverted over this. Its very abstract concept IMHO. Is she (Wikipe-tan) accepted by the Wikipedia community or not? If she isn't, why is she an "image of the day"? And why is her Wikipe-tan deleted? Someone explain this to the layman please? Thanks -- Eqdoktor 13:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple explanation: She is important enough to the Wikipedia website/community to have her own page there. But she is not important enough for the entire world that we are giving her an article in the encyclopedia that we are building. At least not yet.--GunnarRene 14:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanization

There's no standard romanization system for Japanese that uses acute accents to indicate separate syllables. It should probably be simply "moe", with a diaeresis over the e if anything needs to be used at all.

I just thought it'd be a good idea since the moé article is titled that way, feel free to move the page though. _dk 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be because of the same reason that anime sometimes is written "animé". And/or because the hiragana "え" (e) has what looks a bit like an accent. Anyway, I disambiguated the moe link to moe. --GunnarRene 09:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the acute accent is removed, you just get Moe. And no-one loves Moe. --Ppk01 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sony does moe

Thought this might interest you.. Shiroi Hane 02:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The moe countries and PS3 vs. Wii

I was interested in knowing if anyone could put up links to pictures and lists of the moe national personification. And if someone could make a link to the PS3 vs. Wii commercial parodying the Mac ads. ForestAngel 02:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nihon-tan and Hangari-tan are great fan-made examples from the ClickClickClick.com competition: [1], [2]. These two are the most famous among clickers but you can also find personifications of Taiwan, Poland, Chile, Finland etc. like on this picture: [3]. I know the author of some of these pictures so if you become interested in adding one of the pictures to the article, I shall contact him to give permission. --Szbszig 01:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorphization?

I was checking this article out a couple weeks ago, and noticed the use of a certain word: Anthropomorphization. It was picked up by Firefox's spell check, and so I edited out the only occurrence of the word I saw with Anthropomorphisms, and left a nice note saying that I doubted it was a valid word. A few days later I searched the page again and found the word being used several more times. Should the word be taken out and replaced with anthropomorphisms, or left as it is? Jason2gs (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorphize is a word, and "anthropomorphization" is listed on that page as a noun.--十八 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so it is. Very sorry =) Jason2gs (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Gijinkas?

What about them,they should be mentioned in the Pokemon part 98.14.15.12 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenga and the Tengirls

You know I really don't want to be the one who brings this up but if the article is going to be all inclusive wouldn't it have to mention the Tengirl characters? Tengu is a... *sigh* masturbation toy for males sold in Japan. I wouldn't even know about this but the Tengirls but apparently they won the 2008 Hosai Tsuruoka Award ([4]). I'm not sure how to politely or delicately phrase in the article that there are moe anthropomorphism of male sex toys however, since they won the award and that an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize all knowledge, there is reason to include them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrat (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

See Talk:Kemonomimi for recent talk page discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I arrived at this page from Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, and yet the only image in this article is of Wikipe-tan. To add credibility, there should be examples of other moe anthropomorphisms, not just listings.

— Emiellaiendiay 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately other examples would be fair use, and I don't know if that's applicable here when we already have Wikipe-tan to illustrate moe anthropomorphism. _dk 10:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Added an image of Opera-tan, which appears to be free use. _dk 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Most -tans are drawn by individuals. It wouldn't be hard for someone to draw one themselves, and then put it on here under a free license.
Also, most -tans for free software are themselves free. --Nonny 67.141.92.110 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs can be anthropomorphised as well?

Apparently a group of 2ch otakus have made a moe character out of an ethnic slur, it's been significant news in the past few days in the blogosphere. “日本鬼子”, a standard Chinese insult very commonly used against Japanese, can be read as a girl’s name, “Hinomoto Oniko”. It's a personification of the slur, in response to recent attitudes regarding the recent Diaoyu/Senkaku incident. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone's made Hinomoto Oniko. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
ED2: Already applied a small para to the main article. Other editors can feel free to fix it to how they feel best. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Moe Howard

Just a point of clarification.

I am presuming that "Moe Anthropomorphism" has nothing to do with Moe Howard of The Three Stooges.

72.82.162.225 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shiitake-chan picture

The first example of a gijinka as it's demonstrated today should be included in picture form... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.137.137 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Japanese

can you replace the "kemonomimi girls" with something actually done by a Japanese artist that isn't furry, it's obviously western drawn furry crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.20.195 (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a good replacement that's has a license compatible with Wikipedia. But the current picture is hardly "furry crap". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

so are Microsoft doing this officially now?

Anime internet explorer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHTUlF7NA2o

©[[user:Geni|Geni]] (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed Wikipe-tan

The image is essentially original work generated for Wikipedia. It was removed as a WP:SELFREF but there are also no reliable sources which identify Wikipe-tan as a moe anthropomorphism of Wikipedia.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I reported this to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Moe_anthropomorphism. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think both your arguments for removal are valid. There is also a third: Wikipe-tan isn't notable. This is demonstrated by the lack of a WP article about the character. Nanobear (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but it appears other editors who aren't active on this page disagree. I'm not sure I understand this disagreement. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
FWIW & to re-iterate what I said at NORN; IvoryMeerkat, you have a solid point, this is probably OR, Wikipe-tan isn't even slightly notable and it is simply self-serving to use the image so prominently. The article would be much better sourced with a well referenced example - and possibly a collage! --Errant (chat!) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Notability, or the lack thereof, has no bearing here.陣内Jinnai 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right notability is the wrong word; we mean significance. There is no demonstrated significance at this stage. The opera image strikes me as a little better --Errant (chat!) 23:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Signifance doesn't matter; if i made my own image and uploaded to CC for this page and it was an original character it would be just as fine. How well known a character is doesn't matter.陣内Jinnai 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Umm, yes it does :) As I clarified on the NORN page just now, we are definitely in a somewhat grey area where our policy could go either way. But the problems with the image just gently stack up against it and IMO the lack of significance, the issues with the originality of the image showing the concept, the poor sourcing and the navel gazing, compared to the other two much better images make it prime for replacement. --Errant (chat!) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are advocating is coming very close to violating WP:CIRCULAR with regard to wikipe-tan since you want images to require some kind of independent reliable sourcing that validate what they are. I'd be careful as this would apply to anything else created for use with wikipedia, not just an unofficial mascot.陣内Jinnai 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... that doesn't seem to be relevant. In this case an independent source identifying Wikipe-tan as a significant moe anthropomorphism would not be a circular reference. --Errant (chat!) 07:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be because the image didn't exist until it was created by a wikipedian for use with Wikipedia. The affirment as moe could only come after it was used on Wikipedia the same as every other picture made for use with Wikipedia. That's what circular is; using outside sources to support items that originated from Wikipedia. If that was applied to her, then it better start being applied to every Commons image created solely for use on mainspace across Wikipedia.陣内Jinnai 14:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a Chinese article that talks about Wikipe-tan being a moe anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, from Apple Daily four years ago. It's mentioned on the Wikipe-tan page guys. _dk (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
@Jinnai,errrm, no, you are confusing what circular referencing means. If a secondary source discusses something that happens in project namespace that is fine. What WP:CIRCULAR discusses is the use of sources that present information from Wikipedia (i.e. a mirror) - essentially making us a source for ourselves. Not relevant in the example you are giving; but I see how the confusion could come up. @Deadkid, that looks like a potential source. Can you give the context; is that a writer/contributor to Apple daily, or a user contributed content? (it looks like an article, so that rocks!) --Errant (chat!) 10:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are also mixing up what WP:OI says in that you require a source to exist before an image is created which is impossible unless you have somehow found the key to time travel into the past. No source would exist for any image to state that it is X when its created other than the person who created and requiring such preposterous when its not an apple trying to represent the text of an orange. You haven't demonstrated how the image isn't moe anthropomorphism and even 3rd-party neutral opinions agree she is.陣内Jinnai 22:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a strange way of looking at OI, and not really what I was getting at in the slightest. Regarding the latter part of your comment; great, let's see a RS that identifies it as a reasonable example of moe anthropomorphism :) I do still think the Opera image is a better example at this time. --Errant (chat!) 22:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
My point is, neither I nor anyone else needs to show you or anyone else that RS because consensus agrees that it shows what moe anthropomorphism is. OI doesn't require that and demanding is would be basically wanting me to violate WP:CIRCULAR. If you want to change that, bring it up at WP:NOR and WP:IUP.陣内Jinnai 22:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

@Errant: It's a regular feature on Apple Daily that talks about things going on on the internet. Translations of selected phrases are as follows: "Recently there has been a trend of anthromorphism. Following the moe anthromorphism of the OSes lately, Japanese Wikipedian admin Kasuga created the anthromorphized character 'Wikipe-tan', and it has been well-received by Wikipedians all over the world.", "Wikipe-tan was distributed freely under the terms of GFDL [...] which allowed her to be quickly adopted by Wikipedians everywhere and is now the mascot of anime portals of many a country's Wikipedia.", and "Because of her massive popularity, there now exists user-created versions of her such as the schoolgirl Wikipe-tan and the swimsuit Wikipe-tan. Even the CVU of English Wikipedia adopted her into their logo!" Now this article may not be entirely accurate, but it does a swell job establishing notability and satisfying verifiability. _dk (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even without the sources, it's a self-indulgent (and slightly confusing) selfref for Wikipedia to decide that the best illustration for the article is a Wikipedia character. I've removed the Wikipe-tan image and bumped up the very similar Opera-tan image to take its place. --McGeddon (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, wikipe-tan has sources and notability outside of Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it's unsourced or non-notable, just that it seems unnecessarily self-indulgent to use it as the article's primary illustration. If we have two similar, equal-quality images of software-brand characters available to us, it would be better to use the one that wasn't about Wikipedia - it reassures the reader that an illustration is there on its own merits, rather than because Wikipedia is biased towards mentioning Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@McGeddon: On the other hand though wikipe-tan would be the perfect example to show how wikipedia was made into a Moe anthropomorphism character. There are no links to the wikipe-tan article present in describing the image, and the issue I have with opera tan is that it is not that well known, if we are to use a character I suggest Inori Aizawa and at least include wikipe-tan among the images on the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If there's another character that has a full article and seems better known than the Wikipe-tan and Opera-tan, with a solid background of "created by Microsoft Singapore for an ad campaign to promote IE", that seems like it would be the best image to use in the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
On the 31st I plan on starting work for this article, it needs a better layout, more sources, and more than just a lead image change anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A reminder that the image of Inori Aizawa is non-free fair use, and per NFCC and IUP, shouldn't be used in places without a proper rationale on the file description page. Previously the image was only used on the Inori Aizawa article, and hence met the "minimal use" clause of the NFCC (since it was only used on one page, the article specifically about the illustrated topic), however using it elsewhere might be stretching NFCC a bit too far. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Inori Aizawa, it will fail WP:NFCC#1 because there are free-use alternatives, such as Wikipe-tan. Not sure if Opera-tan is free-use or not. —Farix (t | c) 20:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheFarix: I just restored wikipe-tan, after following the picture link to opera tan it led to a source not existing anymore for the picture. [5]. The up-loader is a user named WashiR according to the picture info [6] and there is no evidence that the users are connected (Creator and up-loader). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm natural on whether Wikipe-tan should be the image used to illustrate the article. However, I support the removal of Opera-tan until the free/non-free use status has been established. —Farix (t | c) 21:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moe anthropomorphism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

needs more pics pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Console-tans

There is a significantly sized subculture of artists that draw anthropomorphized versions of video-game consoles. It's been around for at least a decade. KYM has a page on it. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/console-tans-console-tan-tuesday/ 2001:569:FC78:3C00:D89:8E93:43D1:7B26 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moe_anthropomorphism/Archive_1&oldid=1148269807"